Democrats pulling Religion into Campaign Trail?

For those who haven't heard, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) recently apologized to Sen. Barack Obama regarding his comments on his association with the Muslim community. Additionally, Kerrey is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.

What he apologized for was this statement:

"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his
name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his
paternal grandmother is a Muslim," said Kerrey, a former governor and the
current president of the New School in New York City. "There's a billion people
on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."

In my eyes, I don't feel it is a big deal to even bring up religion when it deals a presidential candidate, especially when many are doing the same with Mitt Romney and his Mormanism. Is Obama embarrassed regarding his families religion? Is he ashamed of his middle name being the same as a murderous dictator such as Saddam Hussein? You have to wonder.

Another thing to think about regarding this issue is, is Camp Hillary behind any of this? Did her campaign organizers pick Kerrey to mention this only to retract it in short time, just to throw out the subtle hint of Obamas past? It's campaign season and her numbers are dropping, so this would not surprise me.

On to the context of the association, do we as Americans have a right to want to understand what Obamas relationships are regarding the Muslim community, considering who we are at war with? This is my question to Sen. Barack Hussein Obama: "What are your personal viewpoints on Islam and your churches viewpoints of other ethnic groups"?

That is all I got today.

God Bless America

Maine's 2008 local elections will not be based on War!

Last week I was discussing with a few Republican colleagues about the upcoming the potential outcome of our elections here in Maine. In our county of Somerset, we have 11 or so legislative seats along with about 6 county seats that are continuously up for grabs. In the past few elections, Republicans have represented Somerset well. Some could say that it is the rural area and conservative nature of the area. Other might add that it is the lack of strong Democratic candidates to run against our team. Regardless of the reasoning, the fact remains that we are probably the second most conservative county in Maine behind Piscatiquis. I want to be the most conservative.

Having said all that, I wonder what will the election outcome be in 2008 for our local legislators? What will be the pressing issues here in Maine, outside of the national political scene which is all focused on the presidential race. One of my colleagues, whom I admire, seems to think regardless of the issues pressing Mainers this upcoming year, the only issue on the minds of local voters will be the War in Iraq and their feelings towards President Bush. Whats puzzling about that statement is that in 2006, Mainers came out on full force for the governors race as well as for the referendums and citizens initiatives. So what was the pressing issue that got the citizens of Maine to vote in large numbers in 2006? Simply: governmental spending and borrowing. Mainers sent a message to the governor as well as across the state that they are fed up with the overspending by the government as well as the borrowing to balance the budget. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, although failed by a slim margin, would have given the people more power or control over the governments spending and proved to be the hot topic as well as an eye opener to those in the legislature as well as the governor. Is there any reason to think at this point in time that will be any different come November of 2008? Now I'm not saying the the War will have no effect on the results here in Maine, but the overall issue regarding the local elections it will not be.

One legislator I know told me that during his last campaign in 2006, he fielded very few questions on his stance on Iraq or President Bush. Another said that he had no questions regarding the War. This was at a time when could be arguably said it was the most hottest time during the War. As of right now, shortly after the much talked about "surge" in Iraq by allied forces, the surge as been reported on by General Petreaus as well as in recent weeks by anti-war critic, Congressman Murtha, to essentially be working. Reports of lower casualties and increased captures of al Quaida enemy combatants is proof that the war is going in the right direction. Where's the good new from Maine?

I firmly believe that the spending issues here in Maine by all levels of government; state, local, county and school boards, will be the main focus on our local elections. Increased fuel costs resulting in higher heating costs as well poor roads and lack of new businesses will be key to the local races. The candidate that best describes their plan to help us get our spending down in a way the voters can understand...will win, period. I do not think that voters will say to themselves, "I hate President Bush because of this War and he's a Republican, so I'll vote Democrat". There is no correlation between the War and Augusta. Mainers have to realize that there is a difference between national politics and Maine politics. Things that happen in the Maine Legislature and in the local county or municipal offices hit us more quickly than with Washington politics. As I told someone before, I became a Republican before the War and before President Bush took office. I became a taxpaying Mainer long before that, as did many I know.

God Bless America!

Edwards will win Democratic nomination because of the "Unsaid"

OK, I know the latest polls numbers indicate that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) is gaining in Iowa over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and the other candidates. Those numbers may be legitimate however, some of my questions are: 1.) Will the Democratic base feel he is experienced enough to lead the country? And 2.) Can his campaign stand up to the attacks from Camp Hillary and win the Democratic nomination? Of course these are important questions here and deserved to be answered. However, are these the real questions that Americans will ask themselves when in the voting booth? No. I am going out on a limb here and say that because of the "true" questions that will be asked by Americans in the booth, John Edwards (D-North Carolina) will win the Democratic nomination.



You all may think I'm nuts here but I have a few reasons why I think Edwards will win the Democratic nomination, and yes they begin with what I call the "unsaid" of politics. Yes I'm talking about the hot topics or the sensitive issues of gender, race and religion. These issues are very similar to the everyday life of ordinary people in America of having areas of which are uncomfortable or almost forbidden to talk about in the work place; those being politics, sex and religion. As you can tell, very similar format but different topics, yet all very equally "sensitive" issues.




Let's start with the gender area first, just because it is only fitting to start with ladies first. Having said that, you probably know where I'm going with this but allow me to entertain you for a moment. Unless we want to be completely cruel, we've all established that Hillary Clinton is the lone woman in the field of candidates and apparent front runner of the Democratic Party's nomination for president. Although an impressive history in her own right as a former First Lady with White House experience as well as an influential senator, the question remains whether those credentials be enough to assure the minds of Americans and Democrats for that matter that she is the best candidate or nominee. Will her camp full of loyalists and deep researchers be enough to sustain the lead she's built and get her the nomination? And, the "real" questions American will ask themselves; Is America ready for a female President, much less another Clinton in the White House? My answer to that is simply NO. Yes, I'm sure that sounds cruel on my end but I hold that to be "true and self evident". History tells us that when a woman is running for an office that is on the national ticket, they lose. For instance, look at Margaret Chase Smith (R), Geraldine Ferraro (D) and Pat LaMarche (G) to name a few. They all failed to either win the nomination or breakthrough as the first winner in a national election as a woman. If she does indeed win the nomination, she'll have to actually debate real men on issues of national security, War on Terror and securing our borders instead of keeping the planet green, baby killing rights for woman and Communistic / socialized health care. Given her recent past in debates, she'll likely lose on the real issues that Americans care about...that being able to protect the country with a strong defence and ensuring our Freedom.

Now that we got Hillary out of the way, let's get to Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, that is his real middle name. Just saying that name makes the hairs on the back of my neck flare up like a bad spike from the 80's. Now I mentioned the term race as another area in which Edwards will or could gain the nomination from the Democrats. Yes, race will play a part of this election, on both side of the aisle. Should it? I'm not one to say whether it should or should not play a part in this election, the fact remains, it will. Race has always seemed to play a part when a minority runs for a national office. Look at the platform on which Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton ran on...race. Now, with Obama, unlike Jackson and Sharpton, it's not the fact that he's African American that will be the issue here. To me, it's the "other" part of his race that will play a role in his nomination. I'm talking about his white side or his lack of acknowledging it in many opportunities. (Obamas father was an immigrant from Kenya and his mother was white woman from Kansas). He talks about that in his African American community people know he's Black, but do they know he's white too? (Although some would argue that he's not real African American because of his non-slavery roots) Not at his current pace. By pitting one race against the other or completely disregarding the other in fact, would surely indicate that he is running as a Black man and not biracial. That to me is the real issue with race. If your make up is of two races, acknowledge it and be proud of it. The ignoring of one over the other will not set well with the American people. Couple this with the next topic of religion, which in some ways goes hand in hand, it will be a lost cause for him to win the nomination. Keep in mind, it's not that I don't feel an African American person can win the nomination. I just don't feel that he can win it because of his stance on one race and somewhat neglecting his other race.

Now moving into the religious aspect of the essay, which also deals with Barack Obama. I mentioned earlier of Obamas father being from Kenya, well that is part of the story. The other part of it is that when Obama was a young boy, he attended a madrassa, which some feel is a suspected Muslim extremist school. I hope I do not need to get into the Muslim religion and it's numerous references of killing the Infidels in the Quran, so I won't. The point is, a United States Presidential candidate that was raised and schooled as a Muslim, and a suspected extremist version at that. Thus, putting a potential risk of National Security too close to the Nations Capital and vitals areas of our Nation. As an American I am truly fond of the Freedom of Religion insertion into the Constitution, however, when a religion such as Islam that has been known or associated with modern day terrorism, I have a problem with the closeness associated with potential presidential candidates.

The second part of Obamas religion of today is that his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, solely promotes the black race according to their principles and values, thus having the potential of racism in the White House. Are we as American that desperate for change in Washington that we are welcomed to the idea of having a black president that is willing to solely promote the the Black race due to his religion and not equal treatment for all? Would we really accept a white presidential candidate of the same principles regarding religion and race? I don't think we would in that case nor should we in this case. Through the years we have tried to bring the differences of race together but with Obamas Trinity Church of Christ, how can we really do that with a presidential candidate that knowingly promotes one race over another? Is this the change that America needs or wants? I hope not.

I'm not the most scholarly individual regarding trends in politics however I do believe that if these issues continue to come up and the poll numbers continue the way they have been lately, the candidates sitting in the wings so to speak, will have a huge shot at getting the nomination. Now I'm not for rooting Edwards to win, but face it, he hasn't been in the hot water that Hillary or Obama have been as of late. Granted, Camp Hilliary is focused on Obama with her debates, so make it clear right now that in the next debate of importance and viewing, she will take out all she can on Edwards. His numbers are getting too close to her and she would rather worry about one person instead of two or three. The whole point here is, if the trends continue, Edwards has a shot...which should benefit the Republicans a lot.

Having said all that, we must remember that in order for these differences of the candidates to be known, we must make the mainstream media accountable for the news and the real truth regarding our presidential candidates. Am I wrong for mentioning these sensitive issues? I don't think so considering what the other bloggers and pundits write. I'm only offering a difference of opinion when it comes to the issues that will mean a great deal come voting day. I do truly hope that someday race and religion do not become an issue during an election, however, as long as we are at war with extremist religious groups and have presidential candidates that promote one race over another, they will and should always be brought to the table. We Thee People need the truth and expect no less.

God Bless America!

Craig Should Resign now!

OK, so it's been a few days but, unless you've been living in a remote camp without power in the Northern Maine or have had no contact with the outside world, you've heard of the dilemma regarding Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho). He is the senator that pleaded guilty to indecent behavior in a Minnesota airport restroom a few months back. His actions not only casted a shadow over him as a person as well as the Republicans but also and more importantly, it put his family in an unwanted light.

Now, after a judge denied his request to withdraw his guilty plea, he has decided, against pleural of Republicans in Washington and across the nation, to not resign to try and clear his name. Bad move for three reasons. 1. The character damage has already been done to him. He is a fraud and a sexual deviant. 2. The Republican party needs to have him resign or risk having this be an issue in 2008. This upcoming election is about moving the party and the nation forward. It will not happen unless the GOP puts its foot down and says enough is enough. and 3. An Ethics investigation will most definitely be difficult upon him, his family as well as the Republican Party.

As I stated to begin with, the damage to his reputation has already been done. Regardless of whether the judge OKs or denies his request to pull his plea, the fact remains that he was caught with his pants down. No pun intended. He can whimper and whine about how he should not have made a plea or that he did not mean anything by his wide stance. Nonetheless, he got caught doing something only sexual deviants do.

Secondly, the Republican part and more so the party leadership in Washington should pull him aside and "politely" ask him to resign. The pain is far worse for him and the party if he stays on. This issue will most definitely be an issue come the next few months leading up to the primaries not too mention the general election in November. Dignity is something that can not be replaced by back tracking on your guilty pleas nor is it easily obtainable after an embarrassing sexual act. He'll soon find out.

Lastly here, an Ethics investigation into the happenings or actions of Sen. Craig will essentially wreak havoc upon him and his family. I know I couldn't put my family through that ordeal if I did something that disgusting or disgraceful. He owes it to his family to do what is best for them and not him. His career is over as a US Senator as well as having any future position that has any sense of importance or integrity. An investigation of these sorts will reveal his sexual actions, preferences, orientations, habits and any thing else that would shed new light on to why he would have entered that restroom in Minnesota. It is simply not a place that the results would indeed be positive. Nothing good ever comes out of an Ethics investigation, does it?

Sen. Craig, for the sake of the Republican and more importantly your family, PLEASE RESIGN NOW! You owe your family 2 things. 1. An explanation behind closed doors and 2. the love to leave them out of an unwanted media spotlight. Your character at this point is shot but you can save your family's character and dignity by doing the obvious. RESIGN!